[tomxor]

> I find it also helps indirectly by making clever code harder to write. The dynamic nature of JavaScript encourages a degree of cleverness and meta-programming that makes things harder to understand. While you can do the same in TypeScript, making the complier happy makes it much harder to do so, which encourages more straightforward code.

Interesting.

Not having to define types makes JS feel very fluid to me when using it to jump into a problem and quickly test out ideas.

You can figure out solutions fast, and I suppose with that power comes irresponsibility for those who don't care to clear up the chaos they are able to leave behind in the fast iterations towards discovering the implementation they seek. In short - it takes discipline, and your argument it seems is that typescript enforces a certain degree of discipline... pros and cons to both.

[mountainriver]

I just can’t get behind the dynamic typing arguments in the slightest anymore.

It doesn’t take any time to type your code. We’re talking seconds on the hour, and the benefits are huge

[johannboehme]

It's not necessarily about the time it takes to type the type definitions. static typing leads to developers trying to represent the "real" world in a bunch of categories and arbitrary boxes. Thats not necessarily a good thing because you can loose much time in bike shedding discussions like "Is a person class still a valid person class if it has no Surname" which do not provide actual value to your product. Recommended watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5WdGrpoug

[mountainriver]

> "Is a person class still a valid person class if it has no Surname"

At least you then know the answer to this while writing code rather than at test time, or worse in prod